Innocent British man finally freed in Pakistan

At last, Mirza Tahir Hussain has been freed. This man was sentenced to death in Pakistan after a Sharia court over-ruled the secular High Court's decision that he was innocent of the murder of a taxi driver.

Even though he spent 18 years in jail, with repeated last-minute stays of execution, and his sentence was merely commuted rather than the acquittal upheld, he is coming home.

I posted about this some months ago, and I would like to extend my thanks to any orgahs who wrote to President Musharraf under the Amnesty alert I linked to. Whereas it was Prince Charles' intervention that finally made the difference, the international pressure on Pakistan has been substantial, and the Foreign Office was never allowed to forget this man's plight.

There is good news in the world now and again. Thanks once more.

:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

:yes:
Good.

:2thumbsup:

It hurts to think of the adjustment he must now make to find his way back into regular society after 18 years of imprisonment. Even here in the west we occasionally get people locked up for huge chunks of their lives for crimes they didn't commit. I'm a firm supporter of the idea that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one to be unjustly imprisoned, in spite of the negative effects those 100 could have on society.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I'm a firm supporter of the idea that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one to be unjustly imprisoned, in spite of the negative effects those 100 could have on society.

---

That is an absolute insane idea.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

That is an absolute insane idea.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It just happens to be the central plank of what is known is law and justice .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

At last, Mirza Tahir Hussain has been freed. This man was sentenced to death in Pakistan after a Sharia court over-ruled the secular High Court's decision that he was innocent of the murder of a taxi driver.

Even though he spent 18 years in jail, with repeated last-minute stays of execution, and his sentence was merely commuted rather than the acquittal upheld, he is coming home.

I posted about this some months ago, and I would like to extend my thanks to any orgahs who wrote to President Musharraf under the Amnesty alert I linked to. Whereas it was Prince Charles' intervention that finally made the difference, the international pressure on Pakistan has been substantial, and the Foreign Office was never allowed to forget this man's plight.

There is good news in the world now and again. Thanks once more.

:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

---

I am very happy for two reasons.

1. That this obviously Muslim man is considered British and treated as such.

2. That he is free, as all should be.

However from the artcile quoted we don't know if he is innocent or not, from reading that BBC article. That article is journalism at it's poorest. All we know from that article is he was freed at the behest of Charles and the foreign office. Sounds more like a propaganda coup for all sides involved to gain from.

What, who says he's innocent ? This is just an assumption in that article which fails to describe the crime/s in any respect. That sounds much more like a "miscarriage of justice". What makes him more innocent than anyone else in jail ?

This is a better article which presents the view in a decent perspective with some 'facts' such as this man was a reserve soldier and shot a man, who was under his own words, trying to sexually assault him at gunpoint.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/6154716.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It just happens to be the central plank of what is known is law and justice .

---

The you have a pretty weird sense of what law and justice is.
I would understand and agree with the statement that it is better for 100 guilty people to be imprisoned rather than 1 guilty person to be hanged.
However, this is not about capital punishment, but imprisonment.
There are probably quite a fair number of people who are imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit. However, just because they are unjustly imprisoned doesn't mean all convicts, including rapists and murderers, should be released.
It is better that an innocent person is imprisoned rather than one person is murdered by a convicted killer.

erm you may have missed the point there henry - law and justice is about punishing people who have been found guilty by a group of their peers - the entire trial procedure is to make sure innocent people arnt sent to jail even though some of the guilty will be set free as well (because the state cannot prove their guilt enough to convict) hence the 100 guilty set free rather than 1 innocent sent to jail

Well the odd inocent person sent to gaol is the price to pay to protect the public from its putrid dregs.

You can never entirely eliminate the possibility that an innocent man is found guilty. To set such a standard is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

The you have a pretty weird sense of what law and justice is.

---

Nope , that is what justice is , the law is not made to punish the innocent .

Quote:

---

Well the odd inocent person sent to gaol is the price to pay to protect the public from its putrid dregs.

---

Nope you have it backwards .

So let's see:
Is it better that 10 people accused of murder, of whom one is innocent and nine are murderers, are allowed to go free, with two of the nine killing another two people afterwards,

Or

The ten are all imprisoned for life, however, as they are not free, the two people live?

So lets see then Henry .
Since you have a strange idea of what justice is , can you find any definition of the word "justice" that fits your idea .

If you would like a clue it will be preceded by something which means that it is not "justice":book:

Then perhaps you could find a definition of "law" that fits your idea .

Until you can , perhaps you had better think before you trot out something like ........

Quote:

---

you have a pretty weird sense of what law and justice is.

---

:whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Well the odd inocent person sent to gaol is the price to pay to protect the public from its putrid dregs.

---

Would you be that man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City

Would you be that man?

---

If needs be, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So lets see then Henry .
Since you have a strange idea of what justice is , can you find any definition of the word "justice" that fits your idea .

If you would like a clue it will be preceded by something which means that it is not "justice"

Then perhaps you could find a definition of "law" that fits your idea .

Until you can , perhaps you had better think before you trot out something like ........

---

Oh I see.....
You think that allowing everyone to go free, even those who are guilty, just to prevent the imprisonment of innocent people, is good, even when that action would put at risk the lives of other people?

Why the media attention? There are thousands of others that are locked up for long times (Israel and over 10 years in solitary for one prisoner comes to mind).

Yup, his life is going to be a mess. Just like how many thousand in Africa or in such hell holes as Iraq?

~:smoking:

Oh I see.....
You think that allowing everyone to go free, even those who are guilty, just to prevent the imprisonment of innocent people, is good, even when that action would put at risk the lives of other people?
What is that charachter that gives Dorothy and Toto directions henry ?
Thats your statement that is :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and this sure don't look like Kansas :dizzy2:

Whats the matter ?
Couldn't you find anything relating to law and justice that backs up your position ? :yes:

No, I think that it's a fair point.

What ratio are you happy with?

95% murderers, but 0.01% innocent, or 99.99% murderers but 0.1% innocent (or what ratio of your choosing).

The ratio 100% guilty to 0% innocent is not possible and therefore not worth using. Best join the real world.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh I see.....
You think that allowing everyone to go free, even those who are guilty, just to prevent the imprisonment of innocent people, is good, even when that action would put at risk the lives of other people?
What is that charachter that gives Dorothy and Toto directions henry ?
Thats your statement that is :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and this sure don't look like Kansas :dizzy2:

Whats the matter ?
Couldn't you find anything relating to law and justice that backs up your position ? :yes:

---

I shall once you stop pussy footing around and answer the question.

Quote:

---

You think that allowing everyone to go free, even those who are guilty, just to prevent the imprisonment of innocent people, is good, even when that action would put at risk the lives of other people?

---

Quote:

---

No, I think that it's a fair point.

---

It is no point at all , it has absolutely nothing to do with what was written , it's just an emotional scarecrow without directions .

Quote:

---

What ratio are you happy with?

---

More rubbish that has nothing to do with what is written .

No one should be punished by law unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty , there can be no provision for a ratio of people under the "oh but they might have been or may be in the future guilty so lets punish them just in case" rubbish .
If someone can be proven guilty then punish them , if they cannot be proven guilty then let them go .

So the whole premise of Henrys strawman is absolute bollox that has no relation to anything remotely relevant to law and justice .

Quote:

---

What ratio are you happy with?

95% murderers, but 0.01% innocent, or 99.99% murderers but 0.1% innocent (or what ratio of your choosing).

The ratio 100% guilty to 0% innocent is not possible and therefore not worth using. Best join the real world.

---

There cannot be and can never be a ratio applied to the situation . Each case must be taken as a stand alone incident and dealt with on its own merits .

Quote:

---

You think that allowing everyone to go free, even those who are guilty, just to prevent the imprisonment of innocent people, is good, even when that action would put at risk the lives of other people?

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: utter rubbish Henry .
Now what was it the strawman wanted from the wizard ?
Was it an understanding of what was written in plain language or was it something else ?~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

No, I think that it's a fair point.

What ratio are you happy with?

95% murderers, but 0.01% innocent, or 99.99% murderers but 0.1% innocent (or what ratio of your choosing).

The ratio 100% guilty to 0% innocent is not possible and therefore not worth using. Best join the real world.

~:smoking:

---

And the idea too settle with a ratio instead of having a system that strives to reach the ratio of 100% guilty and 0% innocent is?

The intent with an unreachable goal is to always strive to get better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: utter rubbish Henry .
Now what was it the strawman wanted from the wizard ?
Was it an understanding of what was written in plain language or was it something else ?~;)

---

So it is your belief that all the prisons should be opened. I mean, there must be some innocent people wrongly imprisoned! Let's just free everyone, including all the rapists, paedophiles, drug dealers and murderers!

You really had better hurry to the Emerald City Henry .

Quote:

---

So it is your belief that all the prisons should be opened. I mean, there must be some innocent people wrongly imprisoned! Let's just free everyone, including all the rapists, paedophiles, drug dealers and murderers!

---

By that post it appears your condition is deteriorating rather rapidly . Perhaps the wonderful wizard is your only hope :yes:
Or you could just read what is writtn instead of coming up with such tripe .

It isn't hard to understand plain English is it , if you only had a...... dictionary .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

So try again , and read what has been written , then try and find any possible connection , no matter how slim , between what was written by others , and what was written by yourself .:yes:

*finger twitches*

...must...not...lock....

constructive posts people.

*Sigh*

In reality, there are either going to be the guilty freed or the innocent imprisoned, as the system is not perfect.

Dismissing this patently obvious fact doesn't make it go away. You can shirk from answering, but that is your choice.

By all means strive towards a "perfect" system. As a medic I am at home with risks. We give drugs to preven a worsening heart attack that kill people with intracranial haemmorages - the ratio makes this justifiable.

In law it is difficult to define this ratio, but effectively I was asking if you prefer a system that leans towards leaving the guilty out of jail, or one that leans towards locking up the innocent.

A perfectly simple question. There was no need to get all worked up and huffily dismissive.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No one should be punished by law unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty , there can be no provision for a ratio of people under the "oh but they might have been or may be in the future guilty so lets punish them just in case" rubbish .
If someone can be proven guilty then punish them , if they cannot be proven guilty then let them go .

---

Exactly. No one is arguing that prisons should all be opened and no one punished for crime. The question is whether individual rights or communal security take precedence. The American nation was founded by people who sacrificed their security for the sake of their rights. I still value rights above security, and think this should be kept in mind when trying criminals.

Of course innocent people will be falsely imprisoned, as our all-too-imperfect legal system can fall victim to deception and misinterpretation. Of course guilty people will go free when there is insufficient evidence to convict them. The important thing is that people continue to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Fear should not trump Freedom.

Ajax

Oh well , a quick post since Tosa hasn't deleted the account yet .

Here's one for you Rory ......

Quote:

---

A perfectly simple question. There was no need to get all worked up and huffily dismissive.

---

A perfectly simple response . If you lock up someone who is innocent of the crime they are accused of it means that you have let the person who is guilty of that crime walk free .

Now for Henry to see if he can actually think about what he has written .

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Well the odd inocent person sent to gaol is the price to pay to protect the public from its putrid dregs.

.............
Would you be that man?

---

If needs be, yes.

So young man , why on earth do you have such love and affection for the "putrid dregs" of society that you would go to prison for their crimes and allow them to retain their freedom ?
You really didn't put any thought at all into this did you :no: :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

So young man , why on earth do you have such love and affection for the "putrid dregs" of society that you would go to prison for their crimes and allow them to retain their freedom ?
You really didn't put any thought at all into this did you

---

Great. So when you go down for life for something you didn't do, I hope you remember that. And are happy with your fate, because you're doing your bit to stop people in hoodies hanging around on street corners.